Mitar <mmitar at gmail.com> writes:
>> Neither Haskell nor any conventional language has [evolved to evolve]
> True.
Well - thinking about it, there's no fundamental difference between
genetic algorithms - where you have a "genome" in the form of a set of
parameters and genetic programming - where the "genome" is a program of
some sort, typically Lisp code, since the syntax tree is so accessible
and malleable.
In either case, you have an interpreter that interprets the genome, the
difference is mainly in the expressive power of the language. I haven't
looked closely, but I suspect you might not want Turing-completeness in
either case (Alberto?).
But yes, by designing the language to evolve, we can get a head start
compared to nature.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants